(12-13-2016 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you completely overestimated committee regard for the AAC

If Navy had won out and the committee still put WMU in the Cotton Bowl..

No matter how many times you reply, and no matter what words you post, you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so. Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so

Navy losing means that neither side of the G5 Access prediction argument was proven or disproven. That's as objective as it gets, in philosophy.

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

Except the one where you predicted that WMU would get the Access slot even if Navy won out. That was not proven.

So, just confirming ... however many pages later, WMU is still the one that won the G5 Access Race?

(12-14-2016 12:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  So, just confirming ... however many pages later, WMU is still the one that won the G5 Access Race?

Yes, they easily beat out the Mighty AAC Champions.

(12-13-2016 05:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so

Navy losing means that neither side of the G5 Access prediction argument was proven or disproven.

No matter how many times you reply, and no matter what words you post, you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so.

Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

(12-14-2016 12:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so

Navy losing means that neither side of the G5 Access prediction argument was proven or disproven.

No matter how many times you reply, and no matter what words you post, you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so.

Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

dude when Navy lost, everything went out the door. You have no and I absolutely mean NO f*cking clue if Navy had won out that they would have not been in the access bowl. Get that thru your thick skull. Now if Navy had won out and WMU had still gone to the access bowl- then AND ONLY THEN- would you have been proven right. You can't use Temple as being the AAC champ as proof of your statement.

Quote:dude when Navy lost, everything went out the door. You have no and I absolutely mean NO f*cking clue if Navy had won out that they would have not been in the access bowl.

I would say a Clue... but you're right, nobody could say For 100% sure (either way). I would say there are Solidly more clues that Navy wouldn't have, than would have. The premise was that if they just won (and beat Army who was not auto-eligible unless they upset Navy) -- that Navy would be Surely in. Such a strong statement is more lacking clues than one saying WMU was Surely in if they beat Ohio and finished off undefeated, while being above 2L P5 W Virginia, too (and among other things already explained).

It is a bit too bold to say that WMU Surely would have gotten in no matter what, in anything more than offhand non-argumentative statement. But IMO, it's even bolder to say that WMU surely would Not have gotten in if Navy beat Temple in any way shape or form (with assumption of beating Army).

IMO, if instead of playing not-yet-auto-bowl-eligible Army, they were instead playing a tough 8-3 P5 team as their final game due to some weather postponement -- THEN I would say if they pulled off both wins, with WMU's not-too-impressive win over Ohio -- yeah, more merit and has a lot more clue-backing. But remember.... WMU's ranked over 2L W. Virginia in the poll, and 3L Stanford, and WELL above 3L Nebraska and more importantly for comparison, 2L South Florida. You can say that shouldn't be -- and that's a whole other discussion. But from an objective POV about the Committee, the burden of evidence rests on the ones who would think a 2L Navy would basically Surely jump WMU if they beat Temple (and not just being close enough for discussion for a crucial end-of-year situation, out of respect and acknowledgement).

(12-13-2016 02:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  So with the 3rd year of the Access Bowl we have the following scorecard:
MW: 1-0
AAC: 1-0
MAC: ?
CUSA: 0
Sunbelt: 0

Fixed that for ya...

(12-14-2016 05:31 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:dude when Navy lost, everything went out the door. You have no and I absolutely mean NO f*cking clue if Navy had won out that they would have not been in the access bowl.

I would say a Clue... but you're right, nobody could say For 100% sure (either way). I would say there are Solidly more clues that Navy wouldn't have, than would have. The premise was that if they just won (and beat Army who was not auto-eligible unless they upset Navy) -- that Navy would be Surely in. Such a strong statement is more lacking clues than one saying WMU was Surely in if they beat Ohio and finished off undefeated, while being above 2L P5 W Virginia, too (and among other things already explained).

It is a bit too bold to say that WMU Surely would have gotten in no matter what, in anything more than offhand non-argumentative statement. But IMO, it's even bolder to say that WMU surely would Not have gotten in if Navy beat Temple in any way shape or form (with assumption of beating Army).

IMO, if instead of playing not-yet-auto-bowl-eligible Army, they were instead playing a tough 8-3 P5 team as their final game due to some weather postponement -- THEN I would say if they pulled off both wins, with WMU's not-too-impressive win over Ohio -- yeah, more merit and has a lot more clue-backing. But remember.... WMU's ranked over 2L W. Virginia in the poll, and 3L Stanford, and WELL above 3L Nebraska and more importantly for comparison, 2L South Florida. You can say that shouldn't be -- and that's a whole other discussion. But from an objective POV about the Committee, the burden of evidence rests on the ones who would think a 2L Navy would basically Surely jump WMU if they beat Temple (and not just being close enough for discussion for a crucial end-of-year situation, out of respect and acknowledgement).

Navy was the week before the CCG 2 spots behind WMU- with only Stanford between them. Navy with the win over Temple would have easily passed Stanford. WMU and Navy were BOTH behind WVU the week before the CCG. WMU passing WVU was probably just the conference champion thing at work. Navy would have done the same.

It IMO would have been 50/50 between Navy and WMU if Navy had won out. Definitely not iron clad either way. It was clear the committee had reservations about WMU. Crystal clear.

I think folks like Quo are replacing what they think SHOULD happen with what they think the committee would have done.

(12-14-2016 12:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  WMU is still the one that won the G5 Access Race?

Only because Navy lost their last two games. If Navy had won them, then Navy would've been ranked higher than WMU in the final CFP rankings.

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so

Navy losing means that neither side of the G5 Access prediction argument was proven or disproven. That's as objective as it gets, in philosophy.

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

Except the one where you predicted that WMU would get the Access slot even if Navy won out. That was not proven.

(12-14-2016 05:31 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  but you're right, nobody could say For 100% sure (either way)

Thanks for at least being non-trollish.

It was just two opposite predictions, about what would happen if Navy won out. Obviously it defies all human intelligence to pretend that one side was proven correct even though Navy lost both games.

I don't see why this year would be different from past years... If anything Navy benefited from WMU being ranked so high. There is no precedent for a 2 loss G5 being ahead of any other G5 with less losses. But I guess facts still don't matter.

Highest ranked 2 loss G5 team after CCG

2015 Navy #21 (Houston #18 1 loss)
2014 Boise State #22 (only ranked g5)
2013 none (NIU #14 0 losses, UCF #16 1 loss, Fresno St #23 1 loss)
2012 Boise St #19 (NIU #15 1 loss)
2011 S Miss #21 (Boise #9 1 loss, Houston #19 1 loss)

(12-14-2016 01:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so

Navy losing means that neither side of the G5 Access prediction argument was proven or disproven.

No matter how many times you reply, and no matter what words you post, you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so.

Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

dude when Navy lost, everything went out the door.

The only thing that went out the door was your DUMB prediction about the CFP and Navy.

Next time, adopt a humble attitude, recognize that others understood how the CFP viewed Navy much better than you, and keep quiet.

stever,

You know the CFP much better than quo does. He's just trolling you.

Don't be quiet, make yourself heard.

I think it's time to report this thread to the mods.

It's just quo trolling everyone to get his jollies.

(12-14-2016 12:45 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't see why this year would be different from past years... If anything Navy benefited from WMU being ranked so high. There is no precedent for a 2 loss G5 being ahead of any other G5 with less losses. But I guess facts still don't matter.

Actually, there was an example, from just a few weeks ago, and it was very instructive. Week 13 this year, right after Houston beat Louisville, they were ranked #20 and WMU was ranked #21.

That told us that yes, it is possible for a two-loss G5 to be ranked higher than a 0-loss G5, but it also told us the circumstances that were required for that to happen, and just barely: In addition to being from a stronger conference, the two-loss G5 would have to have extraordinary OOC achievements relative to the zero-loss G5. Because to barely squeeze past WMU, Houston had to have wins over not one but TWO major top-10 level P5 powers, Oklahoma and Louisville. Even one wasn't enough to overcome a two-loss gap.

So what made SteveR and Bison view DOA was that Navy had nothing like that on their resume. Their OOC schedule was lousy, and their performance against it very mediocre (beat an FCS team, beat lousy Notre Dame by 1 point, lost decisively to MWC #5 Air Force).

So it was plainly obvious Navy wasn't going to pass WMU. You'd have to be a blithering idiot to think the committee was going to regard Navy beating Temple and Army while WMU beat Toledo as somehow creating the same situation in the mind of the CFP as Houston having beat Oklahoma and Louisiville (absolutely insane!).

But some around here put that forward, in the face of all logic and evidence. They spouted pro-AAC nonsense that of course proved to be patently false.

But amazingly, they still cling ...

(12-14-2016 12:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  it also told us the circumstances that were required for that to happen

Nope.

That's just yet another red herring in your desperate attempt to "prove" you were right, even though no proof is possible.

(12-14-2016 12:45 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I don't see why this year would be different from past years... If anything Navy benefited from WMU being ranked so high. There is no precedent for a 2 loss G5 being ahead of any other G5 with less losses. But I guess facts still don't matter.

Highest ranked 2 loss G5 team after CCG

2015 Navy #21 (Houston #18 1 loss)
2014 Boise State #22 (only ranked g5)
2013 none (NIU #14 0 losses, UCF #16 1 loss, Fresno St #23 1 loss)
2012 Boise St #19 (NIU #15 1 loss)
2011 S Miss #21 (Boise #9 1 loss, Houston #19 1 loss)

2011-13 you can't use because it wasn't the CFP.

2014- Boise the week before undefeated Marshall lost was a spot ahead of Marshall. And Boise was a lock to get the spot even if Marshall had finished 13-0.

the problem that some folks have is they want to use the final ratings to just project everything. And that's not realistic.

(12-14-2016 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  it also told us the circumstances that were required for that to happen

Nope.

No matter how many times you reply, and no matter what words you post, you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so. Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

(12-14-2016 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 01:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 12:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so

Navy losing means that neither side of the G5 Access prediction argument was proven or disproven.

No matter how many times you reply, and no matter what words you post, you were still profoundly wrong about Navy and the CFP, and proven so.

Whereas all my predictions were 100% confirmed.

dude when Navy lost, everything went out the door.

The only thing that went out the door was your DUMB prediction about the CFP and Navy.

Next time, adopt a humble attitude, recognize that others understood how the CFP viewed Navy much better than you, and keep quiet.

You have NO ******* clue how the CFP viewed Navy. What happened was not proof on how they viewed Navy.